His Church is the body of believers who believe in Him, His sacrifice on the Cross for sins, and their trust in Him as Savior.

So unless you believe in the Anselmian-Lutheran theory of penal substitution you're out?

Last week as I was praying and read the Creed, it struck me where it says "And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried." Yet so many modern Orthodox deny Christ suffered for us? I know this is not the teaching of the Church but it seems like people on this board at least throw it out.

His Church is the body of believers who believe in Him, His sacrifice on the Cross for sins, and their trust in Him as Savior.

So unless you believe in the Anselmian-Lutheran theory of penal substitution you're out?

Last week as I was praying and read the Creed, it struck me where it says "And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried." Yet so many modern Orthodox deny Christ suffered for us?

Not at all! A denial of penal substitution theology does not equal a denial of Christ's suffering.

His Church is the body of believers who believe in Him, His sacrifice on the Cross for sins, and their trust in Him as Savior.

So unless you believe in the Anselmian-Lutheran theory of penal substitution you're out?

Last week as I was praying and read the Creed, it struck me where it says "And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried." Yet so many modern Orthodox deny Christ suffered for us?

Not at all! A denial of penal substitution theology does not equal a denial of Christ's suffering.

Ok, maybe it is just the language used. Your response is a good example. You just say "Christ's suffering" but I'm not sure I ever hear anyone say "Christ suffered for us."

His Church is the body of believers who believe in Him, His sacrifice on the Cross for sins, and their trust in Him as Savior.

So unless you believe in the Anselmian-Lutheran theory of penal substitution you're out?

Last week as I was praying and read the Creed, it struck me where it says "And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried." Yet so many modern Orthodox deny Christ suffered for us?

Not at all! A denial of penal substitution theology does not equal a denial of Christ's suffering.

Ok, maybe it is just the language used. Your response is a good example. You just say "Christ's suffering" but I'm not sure I ever hear anyone say "Christ suffered for us."

I will say that Christ suffered for us. I just don't wish to hold to any abstract theological definitions of this precious mystery.

Fwiw, St. Gregory often mentions the sufferings of Christ, and often the implication seems to be that they are especially "for us." For example:

"Yesterday I was crucified with Him; today I am glorified with Him; yesterday I died with Him; to-day I am quickened with Him; yesterday I was buried with Him; to-day I rise with Him. But let us offer to Him Who suffered and rose again for us--you will think perhaps that I am going to say gold, or silver, or woven work or transparent and costly stones, the mere passing material of earth, that remains here below, and is for the most part always possessed by bad men, slaves of the world and of the Prince of the world. Let us offer ourselves, the possession most precious to God, and most fitting; let us give back to the Image what is made after the Image. Let us recognize our Dignity; let us honour our Archetype; let us know the power of the Mystery, and for what Christ died." St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 1.4

Although I'll say that the passage I find most striking--though it doesn't have the language you spoke of--is this one:

"We needed an Incarnate God, a God put to death, that we might live. We were put to death together with Him, that we might be cleansed; we rose again with Him because we were put to death with Him; we were glorified with Him, because we rose again with Him." - St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 45.28

Yet so many modern Orthodox deny Christ suffered for us? I know this is not the teaching of the Church but it seems like people on this board at least throw it out.

Not most people on the board that I've read.

I've come across several instances of it recently, where people fumed about Augustine or Anselm or just plain "westerners" and our reprehensible idea of Christ suffering on our behalf. Which is why it stood out in the creed to me. If I come across them again I'll post something.

Yet so many modern Orthodox deny Christ suffered for us? I know this is not the teaching of the Church but it seems like people on this board at least throw it out.

Not most people on the board that I've read.

I've come across several instances of it recently, where people fumed about Augustine or Anselm or just plain "westerners" and our reprehensible idea of Christ suffering on our behalf. Which is why it stood out in the creed to me. If I come across them again I'll post something.

I've seen people disagree with the reprehensible idea of the Father vicariously punishing Christ in order to satisfy a compulsion to worldy justice.

But I have seen very few here who deny that Christ suffered for us. Those instances I have seen were based off of a form of docetism and not off of ideas about the atonement per se.

« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 06:55:44 PM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm

if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

Fwiw, St. Gregory often mentions the sufferings of Christ, and often the implication seems to be that they are especially "for us." For example:

"Yesterday I was crucified with Him; today I am glorified with Him; yesterday I died with Him; to-day I am quickened with Him; yesterday I was buried with Him; to-day I rise with Him. But let us offer to Him Who suffered and rose again for us--you will think perhaps that I am going to say gold, or silver, or woven work or transparent and costly stones, the mere passing material of earth, that remains here below, and is for the most part always possessed by bad men, slaves of the world and of the Prince of the world. Let us offer ourselves, the possession most precious to God, and most fitting; let us give back to the Image what is made after the Image. Let us recognize our Dignity; let us honour our Archetype; let us know the power of the Mystery, and for what Christ died." St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 1.4

Although I'll say that the passage I find most striking--though it doesn't have the language you spoke of--is this one:

"We needed an Incarnate God, a God put to death, that we might live. We were put to death together with Him, that we might be cleansed; we rose again with Him because we were put to death with Him; we were glorified with Him, because we rose again with Him." - St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 45.28

Is there any church fathers' writings mentioning why Jesus Christ have to be tortured and insulted by Rome soldiers and Isaralities as well as suffered on the cross before He can die?

It was all part of the process of redeeming humanity that he chose, experiencing what we experience as fully man:

Quote

For Christ also likewise, when it was possible for him to abide in His own honour and deity, not only so far emptied Himself as to take the form of a slave, (Phil. 2:7) but also endured the cross, despising the shame, (Heb. 12:2) that he might by His own sufferings destroy sin, and by death slay death.

-- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 12.4

It also spurs us on to do good, thinking of what he went through for us:

Quote

We have sinned, we have done amiss, and have dealt wickedly, (Dan. 9:5) for we have forgotten Thy commandments and walked after our own evil thought, (Is. 65:2) for we have behaved ourselves unworthily of the calling and gospel of Thy Christ, and of His holy sufferings and humiliation for us; we have become a reproach to Thy beloved, priest and people, we have erred together, we have all gone out of the way, we have together become unprofitable, there is none that doeth judgment and justice, no not one.

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

Only one Church Father from Cappadocia called Gregory can be the best...

Logged

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

To answer Walter's question (and all those who would deny that Christ suffered for us), here is a lengthy quote from St. Athanasius the Apostolic, from his work "On the Incarnation"...because there's nothing that a lengthy quote from St. Athanasius isn't improved -- nay, settled -- by:

Quote

"Well then," some people may say, "if the essential thing was that He should surrender His body to death in place of all, why did He not do so as Man privately, without going to the length of public crucifixion? Surely it would have been more suitable for Him to have laid aside His body with honor than to endure so shameful a death." But look at this argument closely, and see how merely human it is, whereas what the Savior did was truly divine and worthy of His Godhead for several reasons. The first is this. The death of men under ordinary circumstances is the result of their natural weakness. They are essentially impermanent, so after a time they fall ill and when worn out they die. But the Lord is not like that. He is not weak, He is the Power of God and Word of God and Very Life Itself. If He had died quietly in His bed like other men it would have looked as if He did so in accordance with His nature, and as though He was indeed no more than other men. But because He was Himself Word and Life and Power His body was made strong, and because the death had to be accomplished, He took the occasion of perfecting His sacrifice not from Himself, but from others. How could He fall sick, Who had healed others? Or how could that body weaken and fail by means of which others are made strong? Here, again, you may say, "Why did He not prevent death, as He did sickness?" Because it was precisely in order to be able to die that He had taken a body, and to prevent the death would have been to impede the resurrection. And as to the unsuitability of sickness for His body, as arguing weakness, you may say, "Did He then not hunger?" Yes, He hungered, because that was the property of His body, but He did not die of hunger because He Whose body hungered was the Lord. Similarly, though He died to ransom all, He did not see corruption. His body rose in perfect soundness, for it was the body of none other than the Life Himself.

It would seem that some forget, if indeed they ever knew, that we use the word Pascha (ΠΑΣΧΑ-Πάσχα). Often we assume or read this to be "Passover", but the root Greek word means "suffering" (if I am learning anything at all in my Attic studies). This word also is the root of 'Passion' in meaning.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

It would seem that some forget, if indeed they ever knew, that we use the word Pascha (ΠΑΣΧΑ-Πάσχα). Often we assume or read this to be "Passover", but the root Greek word means "suffering" (if I am learning anything at all in my Attic studies). This word also is the root of 'Passion' in meaning.

True. If I remember correctly πάσχειν means 'to suffer'.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 06:54:49 AM by Cyrillic »

Logged

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

Does anyone believe that Christ actually taught an Atonement theory? I mean it seems that the Apostles themselves had a hard time even understanding that he had to die let alone grasp the reason of exactly why. Correct me where I'm wrong as I'm no scholar but it seems these theories on atonement are just that, theories. No one knows for sure because it wasn't divinely reveled.

Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

Not at all! A denial of penal substitution theology does not equal a denial of Christ's suffering.

What's the Orthodox theory instead of this, then?

The Orthodox "theory" is that it works because it works, and if one kind of language helps you draw closer to it, then more power to you.

To paraphrase C.S. Lewis a bit (and it was he who helped me to see that one can deny "penal substitutionary atonement" as an absolute reality and still affirm that Christ suffered and died for us), we have to be careful that we do not confuse the "thing" with the "explanation of the thing". He gives an example of eating supper: long before we developed our modern understanding of acids and proteins and minerals and such, people still ate their supper and benefited from it. Whether they understood how it worked or not, they still ate, and they still knew that it was good to eat. And it could be that our understanding of nutrition is flawed, and perhaps some day in the future we'll have a different explanation as to why eating supper is good for us. But that won't make our experience of eating supper any less significant, or any less real, or any less good.

It's the same with Christ. There are different ways of explaining why He did what He did, and why it benefits mankind. But whether we have the exact understanding or not, it doesn't change our experience with that reality and make it any less good for us.

Another issue is that Who Christ is and what He has accomplished for us is something that is beyond the ability of human language to fully express. Although we speak and communicate ideas with speech, there are things, especially pertaining to God, that our language simply cannot fully express. Christ and our salvation are the same way. We can use human experiences and examples as means of describing what Christ did, but all those examples and models ultimately fall short. In other words, the best that we can do with human language is to make analogies of this, but we will never be able to make a tautology.

We find this all over the New Testament, especially in the Gospels (Christ makes use of a wide range of "atonement theories", so to speak). Christ uses the analogy of being lost and then being found; of being judged for a crime; of being sick and then being made well; of being on the wrong path and then finding the true path; etc. Paul and the other Apostles make use of a variety of analogies as well: being dead and being made alive; being in darkness and then coming into the light; being objects of wrath and then being made objects of mercy; etc. All of these analogies are different, and none of them are the actual reality of our salvation.

So there really is not problem with the use of substitutionary language. That only becomes a problem when people try to make substitutionary language to be "the thing", as if it were the totality of the reality of our salvation. And because of all the baggage associated with that language and the layers of theology that are built upon it in many Protestant circles, we tend just to avoid the language altogether lest people think that we agree with all the "baggage" that is most often associated with that language.

Does anyone believe that Christ actually taught an Atonement theory? I mean it seems that the Apostles themselves had a hard time even understanding that he had to die let alone grasp the reason of exactly why. Correct me where I'm wrong as I'm no scholar but it seems these theories on atonement are just that, theories. No one knows for sure because it wasn't divinely reveled.

I believe that you are right. As I mentioned in my previous post, Christ made use of many types of language to describe our salvation, never singling one of them out as "the" theory above all theories.

Let us rejoice as we keep the feast, my brethren, knowing that our salvation is ordered in the time of affliction. For our Saviour did not redeem us by inactivity, but by suffering for us He abolished death. And respecting this, He intimidated to us before, saying, 'In the world you shall have tribulation.' (John 16:33) But He did not say this to every man, but to those who diligently and faithfully perform good service to Him, knowing beforehand, that they should be persecuted who would live godly toward Him.

I Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that you are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if you were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church. Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.

Christ plainly said he gives his life for us willingly, just as we are told we should do for our neighbor.

John 10:18No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

He was the only one who made it his sole purpose , and told them many times beforehand.

He also told Pilate that he had no power over him , unless It was given to him by God

John 19

7The Jews insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

8When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10“Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”

11Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“

It would seem that some forget, if indeed they ever knew, that we use the word Pascha (ΠΑΣΧΑ-Πάσχα). Often we assume or read this to be "Passover", but the root Greek word means "suffering" (if I am learning anything at all in my Attic studies). This word also is the root of 'Passion' in meaning.

True. If I remember correctly πάσχειν means 'to suffer'.

I thought it was a transliteration into greek of the hebrew word for passover.

It would seem that some forget, if indeed they ever knew, that we use the word Pascha (ΠΑΣΧΑ-Πάσχα). Often we assume or read this to be "Passover", but the root Greek word means "suffering" (if I am learning anything at all in my Attic studies). This word also is the root of 'Passion' in meaning.

True. If I remember correctly πάσχειν means 'to suffer'.

I thought it was a transliteration into greek of the hebrew word for passover.

The etymological English dictionary says it is from the Aramaic Pasha. If it was from Greek "Paschein" it would be unusual, because no language has a word for it that either has those final vowels or consonants. Or - the Greeks came up with their own word for it and literally every other ancient language took it from Aramaic.

Of course He suffered for us. A rejection of Penal Substitutionary Atonement--which is actually quite stupid and senseless I should say--does not equate to that Jesus didn't suffer for us. What we would assert, however, is that He suffered for us on the Cross to defeat Death for us--opposed to satisfying daddy's rage for us.

Of course He suffered for us. A rejection of Penal Substitutionary Atonement--which is actually quite stupid and senseless I should say--does not equate to that Jesus didn't suffer for us. What we would assert, however, is that He suffered for us on the Cross to defeat Death for us--opposed to satisfying daddy's rage for us.

You're clearly (frankly) misinterpreting the meaning of "satisfaction" in those theories of atonement since you go with "rage" (which isn't something anything on it mentions that I have ever seen). It isn't some sort base desire of God to inflict pain it means to make complete.

Of course He suffered for us. A rejection of Penal Substitutionary Atonement--which is actually quite stupid and senseless I should say--does not equate to that Jesus didn't suffer for us. What we would assert, however, is that He suffered for us on the Cross to defeat Death for us--opposed to satisfying daddy's rage for us.

You're clearly (frankly) misinterpreting the meaning of "satisfaction" in those theories of atonement since you go with "rage" (which isn't something anything on it mentions that I have ever seen). It isn't some sort base desire of God to inflict pain it means to make complete.

God doesn't need to make anything "complete". He's omnipotent and His Grace is not restrained by some arbitrary concept of legalist justice.

Its nothing to do with legalist justice. This is what is exasperating about Orthodoxy, everyone is always assuming that people are speaking in terms of some worldview that you oppose: legalism, scholasticism, etc whatever. The worst part is you guys project your Calvinist backgrounds on to everyone else that had nothing to do with them (even former Eastern Catholics do this, they assume everyone is coming from the Catholic background their parents or grand-parents had that they reject. I can tell in talking with someone that they are without them ever telling me).

OO is starting to look really appealing because they're not all trying to prove how wrong their parents were or still one up Bishop Ireland.

Its nothing to do with legalist justice. This is what is exasperating about Orthodoxy, everyone is always assuming that people are speaking in terms of some worldview that you oppose: legalism, scholasticism, etc whatever.

on to everyone else that had nothing to do with them (even ex-U****** do this, they assume everyone is coming from the Catholic background their parents or grand-parents had that they reject. I can tell in talking with someone that they are without them ever telling me).

OO is starting to look really appealing because they're not all trying to prove how wrong their parents were or still one up Bishop Ireland.

Its nothing to do with legalist justice. This is what is exasperating about Orthodoxy, everyone is always assuming that people are speaking in terms of some worldview that you oppose: legalism, scholasticism, etc whatever.

No. Not then, not now.

This doesn't even mean anything. No what? Not then what? No, people aren't assuming legalism or scholasticism? If so, yes, you can't speak of what I have experienced. I came to Orthodoxy fresh from nearly nothing with just months of believing in Christ, I can count the number of times I've been to a Protestant church on one hand (because right away, I started moving towards Orthodoxy) but right away the people I met addressed my questions as "Protestant baggage." And threw all that dumb stuff about 'legalism' and 'scholasticism' and 'minimalism' at me which in fact, I had never had any experience with at all.

You guys might not get it but it makes as little sense as and is as annoying as if assuming I am coming from a Muslim background or something else totally ridiculous. And this didn't happen on the net I am talking about my experiences in real life. Just stop treating everyone like they were raised in things that have nothing to do with them at all.

I'm confused, why is Anselm used in reference to penal substitution in the OP? The satisfaction theory (of Anselm) and penal substitution are very different, however I'm not familiar with Lutheran beliefs on the atonement.

And I'll second what's been said: from an Orthodox perspective, Christ did suffer for us but not by receiving penal punishment from the Father.

Its nothing to do with legalist justice. This is what is exasperating about Orthodoxy, everyone is always assuming that people are speaking in terms of some worldview that you oppose: legalism, scholasticism, etc whatever.

No. Not then, not now.

This doesn't even mean anything. No what? Not then what? No, people aren't assuming legalism or scholasticism? If so, yes, you can't speak of what I have experienced.

I'm sorry. I usually try to speak from the Gospel when I speak with people who are non-Orthodox. I could care less about legalism and scholasticism and I can't speak of what you've experienced.

I came to Orthodoxy fresh from nearly nothing with just months of believing in Christ, I can count the number of times I've been to a Protestant church on one hand (because right away, I started moving towards Orthodoxy) but right away the people I met addressed my questions as "Protestant baggage."

That's unfortunate. Although each of us does carry some baggage which affects how one converts to a different religion.

If you feel that Orthodoxy doesn't affirm the sufferings of Christ on our behalf enough, watch this lecture from Bishop Kalistos Ware. It's literally loaded with descriptions and answers about how Jesus suffered for us on the cross to bring us salvation and forgiveness, all from an Orthodox perspective.

Orthodoxy doesn't disagree with Christ's suffering on the cross for us. But it tends to disagree with certain theories about how his death and suffering on the cross accomplishes salvation...theories like the penal substitution and the satisfaction theory. Not a problem for me since even as a protestant I disagree with them.

Also, Orthodoxy tends to look upon everything Christ did as a man on earth, from his incarnation to his ascension as a saving work. The cross is an essential part of it, but since the work began with his incarnation, you will find many orthodox statements about Jesus to read like: For our salvation he became man" without a lot of references to the crucifixion. It's a little off-putting, but I don't sense that the understanding that he died for us has been lost or muddled.

That's a bit like putting the prequel before the main event. The OT is there to understand the NT. I would be wary of basing any theology on the basis of the priority of the OT.

The most widespread view of the atonement in the Patristic age was 'Christus Victor' according to which Christ defeated the powers of evil and death. Penal substitution was largely a Latin idea originating with St Anselm. It harks back to Jewish temple sacrifices.

Whatever people think about what it means when it is said that Christ suffered for our sins, it has to be seen in the context of divine impassibility and the primacy of Christ's absolute divinity.